"Deb Miller, KDOT secretary, said a number of issues need to be studied including cost, schedule and the likelihood of travel delays because of freight traffic on the line. KDOT will fund a study at a cost of $150,000 and $200,000. Amtrak expects to begin the study in mid- to late summer and complete it by the third quarter of 2009.
So the STUDY will be complete by 1 October 2009.
Now from the Jackson County Democrat (sometimes called the Kansas City Star) article:
"The alliance estimates it could cost $12.7 million a year for operations and $6.5 million in track upgrades.
"The Kansas Legislature would not only have to approve money for its share of the service, but also would have to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak."
That means at best any subsidy will compete for legal authority in the January 2010 session of the Kansas Legislature. The first general election for a Statewide referendum (Kansas does not allow the initiative petition as a tool of governance) is the November 2010 Congressional election. Assuming passage, the Kansas Legislature could appropriate funds in the session which begins January 2011, and in turn there could be a start date no earlier than 1 July 2011.
Living on one side of State Line, working on the other allows me to hear the arguments. Governor and legislators are at odds over simple business development of a coal fired power plant.
As a final aside, Kansas this year had to re-visit the changes to its health insurance planning, hoping to cover poor Kansans. They're down to the point where only a Federal expansion of S-CHIP will bring an expansion of Kansas coverage. Money is tight in Kansas, and Kansas also fell on the short side of the Air Force tanker deal. Money is going to stay tight in Kansas.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PullmanCo quoted THe Topeka Capital Journal :
quote:"The alliance estimates it could cost $12.7 million a year for operations and $6.5 million in track upgrades.
Is the $12.7 million in operating costs based on operating a separate train Oklahoma City to Kansas City or piggy-backing 3 and 4 between Newton and Kansas City? Or did somebody just make up the figure without considering the difference?
The number sounds like the former to me. But that makes little sense because the train from Dallas and Oklahoma needs to go to Chicago.
Is the $12.5 million an operating department expense figure or does it represent a net cash flow figure of marginal revenues less marginal expenses. If the latter, how did they allocate marginal revenues? Fully?
I continue to maintain that if you look at the the total marginal revenue -- all the revenue that Amtrak would get that without the bridge it would not get -- on the Oklahoma City-Newton bridge connection and the marginal costs of operating the bridge less expenses of cleaning And storing equipment in Oklahoma City, this bridge will pay for itself, and Amtrak should not be asking Kansas to pay.
As for the $6.5 million in track upgrades, that's nothing. The track must be in good shape.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something tells me we had best have a "for those tuning in late" moment at this discussion.
Amtrak's Lone Star ne Texas Chief operated over this proposed route until the 1979 "Carter Cuts". I should be reminded that we have active participants here who were not even born when these cutbacks occurred (I was active in the railroad industry at that time).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, perhaps we should really show our age and talk about Santa Fe's Texas Chief. A very classy streamliner (as were all ATSF trains) that operated on this route - plus a Houston section.
Which makes me wonder. Why doesn't the Texas Eagle operate on this fast route rather than meander through Arkansas. This would of course provide a second daily service between Chicago and KC.
With miles saved could probably extend a Lincoln service train to Little Rock to maintain service to that capitol city.
This would work well if the Sunset was rerouted to Dallas from New Orleans so the same east Texas towns would be served. With no Houston to San Antonio Sunset, miles saved could be used to add a Dallas to Houston connection.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, the Texas Eagle route operates and the Texas Chief route does not because there was a storm of local support in the former's territory but not the latter's.
Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion shows how the "national system" has evolved over the thirty seven year lifespan of Amtrak.
In bare essence, the only addition since A-Day is Spokane-Portland and the only subtractions are Pgh-St Louis (National Ltd) and Chi-Jax (Floridian). Other changes, save locally funded services, represent "trade offs" i.e. Lake Shore for Broadway and more to the point at this topic, Eagle for Chief.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking deeper, looks like $12.7M is the gross operating subsidy KS-OK (OK appears to underwrite from the Red River to Dallas).
Of that, it looks like various Federal Acts in proposal or passage will allow up to $3M per year for KS, on a matching funds basis. That means KS has to pony up OTOO $3M per annum.
There is still that pesky matter of the Kansas Constitution, Article 11, Section 9. The collective local wisdom is any expenditure for Amtrak requires a 2/3 majority separate Act.
As I said earlier, that requires action in the 2010 legislative session at the earliest, with voter approval in Nov 2010, appropriations in the 2011 legislative session, and expenditures to begin no earlier than July 2011.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have good "inside" information on the efforts of the Northern Flyer Alliance which launched this initiative during the last year. The leads of this group tell me that the dollar estimates are 12.7 million for the route from Fort Worth to Kansas City, with a pro rata apportionment of costs between the three states. The estimate is based on the current contract Amtrak has with Oklahoma, the calculation being a division of Oklahoma miles by the cost. This comes out to be 21,000 a mile or so. For te entire approximately 600 mile route you get 12.7 million.
The bridge of track that must be analyzed and upgraded is about 195 miles. Based on what was required at the incept of the Heartland Flyer this will calculate to be 2.1 million for Kansas and 2.9 million for Oklahoma.
Added together this is pretty affordable.
The initiative proposes another train set similar to the current Flyer or the Missouri Mule. This equipment should cost no more than 9 million.
Capitalization of the route is expecting and probably depending on the successful passage and acquisition of SB 294 funding which is in the House subcommittee chaired by James Oberstar. This offset (up to 80%) could bring the costs of development way down.
Then the States have to find a funding stream and develop a bi-state compact, with a formal rail plan to satisfy the federal (FRA) requirements.
Lastly, the Kansas Constitution does have a 2/3rds Senate and House majority requirement. But, 6 million or so a year for the State of Kansas is not a budget breaker (equivalent to 1700 yards of state highway). And there looks to be a bi-partisan group of senators ready to co-sponsor legislation. Their interest is chiefly why the Kansas DOT has requested the study.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the Sebelius and the Legislature can't even get off their fourth points of contact about Holcomb, let alone health insurance, let alone funding years 2 and 3 of the School formula, well.... I think there are better ways to spend $3M.
1 a day: That's a vitamin, not a way to run a railroad. If we're going to have KC-OKC-Dallas, and we're going to take stress off I-35, KCI, Will Rogers, and Love Field, then we're gonna need more than 1 a day frequency ... lots more.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It actually may be more like two a day, at least out of OKC. The northbound and southbound from KC and Dallas would actually pass each other in OKC thus providing something of a round trip connection between Fort Worth and OKC or Kansas City and OKC on a daily basis, equalling two trains over those segments. Many passengers will be travelling to intermediate points along the route. There will be some, but not all passengers who will be traveling beginning to end point; but it should be recognized that passengers on urgent business will probably fly from KC to Dallas/Fort Worth (and this is appropriate for many.)
The Northern Flyer initiative is for corridor service; reconnecting communities along the route that are bypassed by air service, and in some cases interstate highways and even state highways. The experience in Oklahoma bears this out as ridership this year was over 73,000 (first year projection in 1999 was 25,000), which was not exclusively end-point to end-point. And it pumps millions into the communities south of Oklahoma City each year.
If this is considered a failure, then federal government should make it illegal and end it in the national interest. If it isn't a failure then this should be expanded into the State of Kansas, bridge the connection to Kansas City and watch ridership increase to well over 100,000.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you diagram traffic from KS to Dallas, the major nodes are KC, Wichita, Topeka and OKC. They are the only standard statistical areas on the route. Everything else is rural.
For this to work, it has to have frequency density to make it worth my while vice absolute independence of auto or speed of air. Right now SWA runs 10 frequencies per day KCI-LUV and 4 frequencies KCI-OKC.
I've also driven Dallas to Kansas City, and OKC to KC. Any train will have to "keep up the skeer" and maintain an average rate of advance greater than 60MPH. According to mapquest, I can get from KC-DAL in 8 hours 20 minutes by car.
Anyone who thinks about this and does not resource both frequency and velocity dooms it to failure.
Of course, getting it through the Kansas Legislature by itself will be an exciting act!
And since you hopefully listen to KPR, you know as well as I do that the Kansas Senate pissed away a whole day yesterday debating the illegal immigrant bill before finalizing it as it pretty much came out of committee.
Bank on the Kansas Legislature to do something right and timely? Go see Mark Funkhouser for some Frances Semmler meds...
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the train should not take super long, it doesn't have to be quite as fast as driving. Remember, a lot of people would rather take a 10-hour train ride than drive 8 hrs!
Question: Will this train stop in Guthrie OK? I HOPE SO, it's quite a tourist attraction, isn't it?
Also, would it stop in Lawrence KS? That is a fairly busy student town, isn't it?
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: While the train should not take super long, it doesn't have to be quite as fast as driving. Remember, a lot of people would rather take a 10-hour train ride than drive 8 hrs!
Question: Will this train stop in Guthrie OK? I HOPE SO, it's quite a tourist attraction, isn't it?
Also, would it stop in Lawrence KS? That is a fairly busy student town, isn't it?
Yes, yes, and yes!
Yes: Guthrie's spectacular and would likely be a stop. Yes: Lawrence is already a stop, and, Yes: A busy college town. Other college towns include Washburn-Emporia-Bethel-Wichita State-Cowley County in Kansas.
- and to the previous poster, I had to go to OKC a month ago on legislative business and for a moment thought of flying (you know the old $69 SWA ticket thing; nope $270 round trip). So I drove, and yes I was able to make it from OKC back to Kansas City in 5.5 hours (I don't think I could make Dallas in 8 because at times I was driving 92 MPH!), stupid I know and there was a brief flurry of snow just north of Wichita.)
Now I was bone tired after that trip. I left for OKC at 6:00 am and got home at 9:00 pm. How stupid to desire to ride a train which would have taken about the same amount of time overall, but my ticket would have cost around $60 dollars, and I would not have spent the $85 unreimbursed dollars on gasoline (now that's smart economics); and my car got another 700 miles on it. And if I would have been caught going 92mph my other ticket would have been about 4 times $92.
So, to the poster above, maybe you're right, and driving and flying is marvelously better, but I'll tell you this: last week I traveled to Grand Canyon on the SW Chief, spent a lot of money and it took 24 hours to get there. And I'll ride a train anytime over driving if there is an opportunity.
All those minutes saved driving or flying. What exactly would you do with an extra 67 minutes anyway?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer rail travel as well. But, if we're going to recapitalize, we have to do it smart. Doing it on the cheap or on the slow is just plain stupid.
Last year my average rate of advance from KC - Kirkwood was something under 40MPH. This year, for the same trip, I drove.
Amtrak has to do other things to attract passengers. Back in the day it was enough to offer the businessman a worktable in his Pullman section or roomette. These days, wi-fi is the essential standard. Part of the capitalization is making sure those who have access can get it from the rails.
Amtrak also has to revisit the food service issue. Amtrak is thinking like a Government (duh). Food service to the railroads, pre-Amtrak, was a cost of doing business, and there were ways to help write off the losses. I challenge anyone to say that a nukable Am-meal these days is the same as a fresh burger off the grill in a UP/ATSF cafe car in 1967/8. We're whining about air accountability acts... well, when a passenger is a captive audience for 8 hours, you need to think about feeding the man/woman.
Frankly, Amtrak and the railroads need to look at routes closely. They need to do the proper traffic demand studies, to see where rail can displace cars and planes.
AND... Amtrak has to embrace that velocity matters. Look at Eric Bowen's streamliner schedules website. Passenger rail velocity is going BACKWARD relative to rates of advance in the mid-50s.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Governor of Kansas has apparently received hundreds, maybe close to a thousand letters and post cards in the last three months from citizens about this Northern Flyer initiative. There is a web-site: www.northflyer.org.Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
516K in Johnson County in Y2K+6 155K in Wyandott County in Y2K+6 470K In Sedgwick County in Y2K+6 (source: quickfacts.census.gov)
1000 letters. I'm terribly impressed. NOT.
I'll be impressed if I see legislation introduced to the Kansas House. I'll be more impressed on the day service starts. I'll buy you a beer at the Golden Ox when service starts.
PS: BTW, I cannot help it if you choose to be a hazard to yourself and others and break the law on speeding, especially in the winter. Considering the horses A##es I saw in the ditch on Mo-45 between the Waldron Bend and East Leavenworth (45 Spur intersection) after this winter's storms, I hope your life insurance and estate plans are current.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wanted to connect Wichita with KC why not just use the DMU's from Colorado railcar. They would probly be able to enter into an agreement like they wanted to do with Vermont for replacement units for the Vermonter and if you eliminated the state of KS from the equation and made it just a Amtrak/Colorado Railcar demonstration project, I.E. Pork Barrel, you might be able to get something done. Ignore trying to get all the way to DFW or OKC to KC. Build in increments.
Posts: 14 | From: SE KS/SW MO | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
PullmanCo: You sound very well educated and well versed about the Kansas legislative and government funtions. Do you have any perspective on why KDOT would commit to spending nearly $200,000 of State funds to commission a study from Amtrak. Seems odd based on a number of things; 1) the Kansas Constitution prohibition would seem to relegate this action as wasted money by fiat; 2) why is this being proposed now? What could possibly cause this to happen? It doesn't seem like something that could happen by accident; especially that someone in KDOT just decided to spend 200 grand. 3) Do you think this could have been prompted by Amtrak? I've never known Amtrak to be so bold as to propose such an outlandish initiative in a market so remote. 4) The Kansas legislature doesn't appear from your perspective able to make anything of substance happen. 5) Why would so many communities pass resolutions simultaneuously in support of this? 6) After years of nothing why are people writing letters to the Governor all of a sudden?
So why this, why now, why this route and what is causing this in 2008? Do you have any thoughts or know anything about what is going on?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
PullmanCo: You sound very well educated and well versed about the Kansas legislative and government funtions. Do you have any perspective on why KDOT would commit to spending nearly $200,000 of State funds to commission a study from Amtrak? Seems odd based on a number of things; 1) the Kansas Constitution prohibition would seem to relegate this action as wasted money by fiat; 2) why is this being proposed now? What could possibly cause this to happen? It doesn't seem like something that could happen by accident; especially that someone in KDOT just decided to spend 200 grand. 3) Do you think this could have been prompted by Amtrak? I've never known Amtrak to be so bold as to propose such an outlandish initiative in a market so remote. 4) The Kansas legislature doesn't appear from your perspective able to make anything of substance happen. 5) Why would so many communities pass resolutions simultaneuously in support of this? 6) After years of nothing why are people writing letters to the Governor all of a sudden?
So why this, why now, why this route and what is causing this in 2008? Do you have any thoughts or know anything about what is going on?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
We'll see what happens in the 2009 legislative session.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
I said eliminate the state of Kansas from the equation. Make it just Amtrak running/Colorado Railcar supply operation.
Posts: 14 | From: SE KS/SW MO | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't eliminate Kansas from the equation unless you find a way to run around Kansas instead of through it.
Why the facination with Colorado Railcar? At this point they have been far more talk than action.
I agree with the P-O-R-K assessment, as well. There is no point in a "feasibility study" The only study needed would be the one to decide what needs to be done AFTER the decision to run the service is made. As for feasibility, there are three ways to answer it:
The three sentence version: The tracks are there and are in good condition. Some work needs to be done in the nature of probably adding a couple of sidings, extending road crossing circuits if they have been shortened for 55 mph instead of 79 mph. Station platforms and some form of station facilities will be needed at XX locations.
The few paragraphs version: Expand on the above by talking about where new sidings are needed, what grade crossing changes need making, number of trains on the line, etc. Where you intend to make stops, a few words on station facilities.
The 200K version: take the above as introduction, add a lot of information on track conditions, copy in some or all the track charts as appendices, talk about ridership studies, station facilities, etc., and fluff it out.
Most of the stuff in the $200K version only needs doing, if at all, after it is decided to run the service.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to amend one of my earlier comments:
OK, 200K on the table for a study. Amtrak (meaning a consultant to Amtrak) expects it done by 3QCY2009.
That means July-Aug-Sept.
OK, we blow by the remainder of this years legislative session and all of next. Legislative action cannot begin until January 2010.
The best case is Article 11, Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution is not in play. That means Legislature can let the action compete for funds in the 2010 session.
I never, ever, count on best case solutions. I've learned the hard way... that's a recipe for foolishness. Somebody (Chris Kobach, mebbe?) will sue for an injunction.
To me, the reasonable case is the Legislature decides to authorize this for referendum of the Kansas Constitution, and gets that done for the November 2010 general election.
Now, finally, the route can compete for funding in January 2011.
As I said earlier... a reasonable man will not expect this to happen until July 2011. The cynic sees 200K going to a Consultant's pocket, and the study moulders on a hard drive in Topeka.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
AM - Lawmakers Leave Major Issues Unresolved Date: April 7, 2008 Kansas lawmakers are back home today after finishing up the 2008 regular session. But there are still plenty more issues that will have to be resolved when the House and Senate return for the wrap-up session on April 30th. Statehouse reporter Peter Hancock explains.
If anyone really thinks the Kansas Legislature can "get a train done" in the 2010 legislative session, we need to bet a beer at the Golden Ox over this.
The ineptitude of the Kansas Legislature closely follows the Pendergast corruption rampant through Missouri.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Study due NLT 30 September 2009. That means the proposal will not even see the 2009 Kansas Legislative Session.
Results of study require State Constitution Amending in the 2010 Kansas Legislative session.
Assuming the "can't get much done" Kansas Legislature can get this through, then we can talk about competition for funding.
From a later post by a politico on this board, there seems to be a 28 month lead time on new equipment. IF and only IF Amtrak and Kansas can "bet on the come" in September 2009, then the early start date pushes to the right to January 2012.
Anyone who is thinking a start date before July 2010 needs a reality check. Even a start date of July 2011 is pushing the far limits of optimism.
Factoring in equipment lead time, it appears the realistic start date for a KS-OK service with minimum 2 turns a day would be August 2013.
RFE: Adding in equipment procurement lead-time
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:says John Mills, of Topeka, a retired Amtrak employee who has been a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Railroad Passengers since 1977.
NARP. That says a lot.
Let's see. Amtrak serves Newton at THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING! (301AM and 325AM by the current PTT) People out there think a cross-platform transfer between trains at 3AM is going to win return customers.
That's the part that amazes me.
Look, if Kansas is going to do this, it needs to do it right, such that it might take some of the burden off I-35 and and MCI-OKC-DFW city pairs.
Kansas Legislature starts the annual wrap-up session tomorrow. If Kansas Public Radio is anywhere near right, Legislature has to back $130M out of the budget for next FY. Two years from now (remember, the Legislature cannot start actively considering this until the study is back in the fall of 09, which means the January 2010 legislative session), it'll be interesting to see how the proposal plays.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Let's play a little game.
It's called "Who is the Spin-Meister?"
From the article:
quote:says John Mills, of Topeka, a retired Amtrak employee who has been a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Railroad Passengers since 1977.
NARP. That says a lot.
Let's see. Amtrak serves Newton at THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING! (301AM and 325AM by the current PTT) People out there think a cross-platform transfer between trains at 3AM is going to win return customers.
That's the part that amazes me.
Look, if Kansas is going to do this, it needs to do it right, such that it might take some of the burden off I-35 and and MCI-OKC-DFW city pairs.
Kansas Legislature starts the annual wrap-up session tomorrow. If Kansas Public Radio is anywhere near right, Legislature has to back $130M out of the budget for next FY. Two years from now (remember, the Legislature cannot start actively considering this until the study is back in the fall of 09, which means the January 2010 legislative session), it'll be interesting to see how the proposal plays.
I believe you have it correct about the spin-meister. Of course this guy Mills happens to be the source d'jour for the article. There was another article today in the Wichita Eagle.
In it they quote Autumn Heithaus of Wichita. She appears to be one of the leaders and catalyst for a movement that has swept this agenda to the forefront (compared to recent years of inactivity) of an initiative that has rattled Deb Miller and her office into activity. The other driving force is a State Senator from Winfield, Kansas who has organized 28 of her colleages in the Kansas legislature to support a bill she plans to introduce in the next legislative term (2009). She apparently got wind of the two Passenger Rail Investment and Reform/Improvement bills and sees a daytime passenger train operating between Kansas City and Oklahoma City delivering festival goers to the Bluegrass Festival. She has excited other colleagues who wish to see tourists visiting the still developing Prairie National Park, and others who want to see connectivity among about a dozen big name colleges and universities along the route. Lastly she has made a very clear case that the State Capitol in Topeka doesn't even have airline service and that the only airport in Kansas with real commercial airline service is in Wichita. She has persuaded many of her Senate colleagues that the State deserves more and can get it for about $6 million annually. The State department of transportation woke up and smelled the coffee on January 11th when the Senate/House transportation committee on which she she sits politely suggested that KDOT look into this (meaning fund-a-study). KDOT doesn't seem to have any real imagination or inherent initiative to do anything beyond building billion dollar highways, like a proposed 6 laner from Leavenworth to Spring Hill, Kansas that nobody in the area wants or is clamoring for. KDOT talks cautiously about this development and adds little innuendos like "capacity study" "feasibility", and confusing dodges about "route study" (they also did this in a rail plan they developed in 2000), however (and PullmanCo you may find this intersting) the real route being talked about and planned for is a daytime operation out of Kansas City headed for connection in Oklahoma City with the Heartland Flyer with thru service to Fort Worth. Amtrak is pretty excited by the work that Autumn Hiethaus has done, specifically some 20 city councils up and down the route have passed resolutions requesting daytime passenger rail service. These include major cities in Kansas including Topeka, Wichita, Lawrennce and Emporia, Arkansas City, and Newton, and numerous smaller cities as well. There are a number of cities in Oklahoma that have passed resolutions also. Not one of these towns supports the idea of a single expansion at 3:00 am to Newton. All of these resolutions have been passed since December and have been delivered to their state senators and legislators, the governor and the four Kansas U.S. House Members. All these communities are really interested in is the same type or kind of economic development that Oklahoma got with the development of the Heartland Flyer.
The information I share here is published on an organization website: www.northflyer.org.Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Winfield, eh? I guess the conservatives moved out of Winfield when the LCMS Concordia College closed up back in the late 80s.
How can someone run a bill in the 09 session when the study isn't ready until Sept 09? That's putting the cart before the horse.
At least some people are thinking multi-frequency KC-DFW metroplex. Re-running the SF Ranger is about the only way this really makes sense. If you schedule a train leaving KC at 830AM, and you run some fairly aggressive speed, you can get to the Metroplex by 630. Launch a second daily turn at Noon, it arrives 10ish at night... which isn't beyond the acceptable range for shuttles to Metroplex hotels. That kind of routing also permits daylight service on the line. For Northbound traffic, similar suitable travel conditions appear. Hooking up with 3/4? Hookup with 3 at KC is reasonable. Even if the Ranger is late, there's all that slack time between KC and Lawrence, so a transfer at Lawrence is plan B. Hooking up 4 will be hard no matter how you slice it. Amtrak almost needs a 3d overnight frequency. I guess there'd be a need to do demand study of daily DFW-OKC-Chicago traffic to see if making a good connection is justified.
The downside? 4 sets of equipment. RT takes 2 days. Depending on how crew is set, may need a crew change point either at Ponca City, OK or Arkansas City, KS.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: How can someone run a bill in the 09 session when the study isn't ready until Sept 09? That's putting the cart before the horse.
Another state senator from Lawrence answered this question which was put forward exactly like you expressed it, and said, "Oh, we can do that as enabling legislation, subject to funding and appropriation. That will get the authorization on the books and move the measure forward and positioned for the Federal funding, if it actually makes it through the U.S. House. But reports from Congressmane Moran say that this is likely and it is a solid bi-partisan bill."
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: What about the Article 11 issues?
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
A state representative from Leavenworth said, "I thought that issue had been resolved," then added, "but if not then we put it up and needs to pass by a 2/3rds yes vote." Another state respresentative from Wichita said, "you know this bill would best be fostered by the senate, you need 28 votes but that is much easier to come by and since this is bi-partisan and not a lot of money it probably has a pretty good chance of flying; (adding) in the House most of our bills never make it out of committee, but when we get a senate bill we usually go along with it, unless it's something real political (illegals), or controversial (coal fired power plant), or a hot- topic screwy social issue (Tiller the Baby Killer).
So, the Kansas Constitution actually doesn't actually prohibit this. KDOT has often brought it up in a paltry effort to discourage, though in recent months KDOT officials have toned this down because they are now recognizing that city councils and chambers of commerce have organized as a corridor communities coalition with the support and endorsement of a number of legislators. The State DOT has traditionally brings it up, and states it in a way that lets the average citizen thinks there is a prohibition, but therre really isn't (when you read it actually is a provision). This same article in the Constitution applies to highway construction as well (and the state builds highways), once again with a 2/3rds affirmative vote in both Legislative houses. (It's Article 11, section 9).
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: What about the Article 11 issues?
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
A state representative from Leavenworth said, "I thought that issue had been resolved," then added, "but if not then we put it up and needs to pass by a 2/3rds yes vote." Another state respresentative from Wichita said, "you know this bill would best be fostered by the senate, you need 28 votes but that is much easier to come by and since this is bi-partisan and not a lot of money it probably has a pretty good chance of flying; (adding) in the House most of our bills never make it out of committee, but when we get a senate bill we usually go along with it, unless it's something real political (illegals), or controversial (coal fired power plant), or a hot-topic screwy social issue (Tiller the Baby Killer).
So, the Kansas Constitution actually doesn't really prohibit this. KDOT has brought it up in a paltry effort to discourage, though in recent months they have toned this down because they are now recognizing that city councils and chambers of commerce have organized as a corridor communities coalition with the support and endorsement of a number of legislators. When the State DOT brings it up, they state it in a way that lets the average citizen think there is an absolute prohibition, but there really isn't (when you read it, it actually is a provision). This same article in the Constitution applies to highway construction as well (and the state builds highways), once again with a 2/3rds affirmative vote in both Legislative houses. (It's Article 11, section 9).
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think I can drop his wonderful comment on some Kansas Republicans...
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
